MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 21 2017, 9:36 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Timothy E. Strowmatt Adam G. Forrest
New Castle, Indiana Boston Bever Klinge Cross &
Chidester
Richmond, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Timothy E. Strowmatt, February 21, 2017
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
33A05-1606-SC-1485
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
Keith Butts and The Honorable Bob A. Witham,
Mike Smith, Judge
Appellees-Respondents Trial Court Cause No.
33C03-1512-SC-1453
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1606-SC-1485 | February 21, 2017 Page 1 of 3
[1] Timothy Strowmatt appeals the trial court’s order denying his small claims
against Keith Butts and Mike Smith, both of whom are employees of the
Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Strowmatt argues that there is
insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s order and that he was denied
due process of law because he requested a copy of the Small Claims Manual
from the trial court but allegedly never received one. Finding sufficient
evidence and that Strowmatt has waived the due process claim, we affirm.
[2] Strowmatt is an inmate in the DOC. On January 8, 2016, Strowmatt filed a
notice of small claims, arguing that the New Castle Correctional Facility failed
to deposit the full required amount into Strowmatt’s reentry account.
Specifically, Strowmatt contends that he is owed $89.14.
[3] Indiana Code section 11-10-6-3(d) states that if an offender is eligible for a
reentry account, between ten and twenty percent of that inmate’s gross earnings
shall be deposited into that account. Strowmatt argues, correctly, that less than
the required amount has been deposited into his reentry account.
[4] Indiana Code section 11-10-15-1, however, states that reentry accounts are
subject to “all other department rules” regarding those accounts. Relevant to
this case is DOC Policy and Procedure Number 04-01-104, which states that
“15% of the offender’s earnings, after all required deductions have been made, from
the work assignment” will be deposited into the offender’s reentry account.
Appellant’s App. p. 77 (emphasis added).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1606-SC-1485 | February 21, 2017 Page 2 of 3
[5] In this case, there is a federal court order in place against Strowmatt requiring
that 80% of his state pay be applied to his federal court filing fee arrearage. He
also owes additional sums of money related to copies and postage. As such,
after all of the required deductions were made, less than fifteen percent of his
gross earnings were available to be deposited into his reentry account. Given
that the statutes regarding reentry accounts are subject to DOC rules, and that a
DOC rule plainly requires that all required deductions be made before any
deposits are made to reentry accounts, there is sufficient evidence supporting
the trial court’s denial of Strowmatt’s small claims.
[6] Strowmatt also argues that he requested the Small Claims Manual from the trial
court but did not receive it; he contends that his due process rights were
violated as a result. He did not raise this argument to the trial court.
Consequently, he has waived it and we will not address it. E.g., JK Harris & Co.,
LLC v. Sandlin, 942 N.E.2d 875, 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (observing that
constitutional issues, such as lack of due process, are waived if the issue is
raised for the first time on appeal); Miller v. Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 878
N.E.2d 346, 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (same).
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1606-SC-1485 | February 21, 2017 Page 3 of 3